* Sitting in on meetings of things that might be, and calling me in when he feels my input would be useful
* Being a first point of contact for the "customer" when they want to find something out but don't want to poke dev directly (they do poke me directly on occasion when they know it's appropriate)
* Being a first point of contact when I need some information (Who should I talk to to get more information about X? Can you schedule a meeting with the folks from Y so that we can discuss the technical details of something? etc)
He's there because he knows enough about my work and the work of everyone else we interact with that he can handle the management of non-technical details. I, for one, am very thankful that he is there.
Honestly, it runs similar to the argument for an Administrative Assistant. Sure, I could schedule my own trips, and order my own <stuff>, and such. But having someone there that does such things on a regular basis is a huge benefit. The AA(s) at every company I've worked for have always been someone I am very thankful to have, even if we could get by without them. It's all about efficiency.
* Sending random IMs to the entire team throughout the day about funny stuff he finds on the Internet "to maintain team cohesion."
* Regularly interrupting individual team members and asking them about their projects "to make sure things are getting done and nothing is falling through the cracks."
* Nitpicking on small, often inconsequential details as a way of giving "constructive feedback" while insisting that everyone should be able to think "big picture."
* Occasionally saying racist/sexist stuff in weekly meetings "as a joke"
* Claiming that there is nothing wrong with asking an interviewee about their personal life because "culture fit is an extremely important part of the hiring process."
* Dismissing complicated front-end customizations as "just scripting" and insisting that "real programming" is done by our software developers (most of whom are fresh out of college).
Ah, sorry. That quickly turned into a rant...
I'm all for AA's, and I see the value of managers, but is it not possible to have a structure where they have some power where required, but not so much that they basically 'own' you (as is usually the case)?
I'd love to work in a place where managers are not formally 'in charge', but mostly serve the purposes you describe. I might be missing something though, so I'd love to hear arguments why this is not done or not possible.
So another symptom of the alienation of labor and capital? Stupid capitalism.
To make each worker personally absorb 100% of the risk involved in their production has a certain upside... but also a pretty obvious downside.
Say I'm a weaver, I buy supplies and I rent coworking space and I take whatever hours I want, I have full creative control and I get 100% of my own profit to work with. Yay no boss. But if my supplies or product get stolen, or eaten by moths, or are just bad, or become unfashionable, or cashflow kinks prevent me from selling... pay-to-work sounds less attractive when put that way, to lots of people.
Answer: the boss isn't for the employee, the boss is for the people who are spending the money on employees they don't trust. Putting in a boss is the first of many measures to protect capital. Most of these measures are very flawed.
But even in a cooperative scenario, protecting capital is still a concern because an employee of a cooperative can also fuck off rather than working, thereby squandering jointly-owned capital. Big difference, not really.
Only if you have ways of doing business without requiring any capital, or where the worker puts their own capital on the line, is it going to stop being a need